内镜下估计大肠癌息肉大小的不准确性和偏倚来自1828个整体切除前瞻性队列的见解。

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Kohei Shigeta, Kenichiro Imai, Kinichi Hotta, Nozomu Kobayashi, Ken Ohata, Yoji Takeuchi, Akiko Chino, Masayoshi Yamada, Yosuke Tsuji, Keita Harada, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Toshio Uraoka, Takashi Murakami, Shigetsugu Tsuji, Atsushi Katagiri, Shinichiro Hori, Tomoki Michida, Takuto Suzuki, Masakatsu Fukuzawa, Shinsuke Kiriyama, Kazutoshi Fukase, Yoshitaka Murakami, Hideki Ishikawa, Yutaka Saito
{"title":"内镜下估计大肠癌息肉大小的不准确性和偏倚来自1828个整体切除前瞻性队列的见解。","authors":"Kohei Shigeta, Kenichiro Imai, Kinichi Hotta, Nozomu Kobayashi, Ken Ohata, Yoji Takeuchi, Akiko Chino, Masayoshi Yamada, Yosuke Tsuji, Keita Harada, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Toshio Uraoka, Takashi Murakami, Shigetsugu Tsuji, Atsushi Katagiri, Shinichiro Hori, Tomoki Michida, Takuto Suzuki, Masakatsu Fukuzawa, Shinsuke Kiriyama, Kazutoshi Fukase, Yoshitaka Murakami, Hideki Ishikawa, Yutaka Saito","doi":"10.1002/ueg2.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal polyps influences treatment decisions and clinical outcomes; however, its precision remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of endoscopic size estimation for colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm utilizing data from an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post hoc analysis included only en bloc resected lesions treated by ESD. Patients with neuroendocrine tumors, recurrent lesions, colitis-associated dysplasia, or insufficient data were excluded. Size accuracy was defined as a margin of error < 5 mm. Outcomes included the frequency of size errors ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 20 mm, terminal digit preferences in estimated size, and predictors for lesions estimated endoscopically at 20 mm but pathologically ≥ 25 mm. The reference standard was pathological size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1889 lesions (1809 patients), 61 lesions (60 patients) were excluded. Finally, 1828 lesions (1749 patients) were evaluated. The accuracy of endoscopic size estimation was 53.4%. Errors ≥ 10 and ≥ 20 mm occurred in 19.1% and 4.5% of lesions, respectively. Endoscopic size estimation showed a strong terminal digit preference for 0 (65.2%) and 5 (30.0%). Among 366 lesions estimated at 20 mm, 97 (26.5%) were pathologically ≥ 25 mm. Polypoid lesions [odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-6.8] and laterally spreading tumors granular type (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.5) were predictors of underestimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal lesions can be inaccurate and influenced by digit bias, underscoring the need for improved measurement techniques (UMIN000010136).</p>","PeriodicalId":23444,"journal":{"name":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inaccuracy and Bias in Endoscopic Size Estimation of Large Colorectal Polyps; Insights From a Prospective Cohort of 1828 En-Bloc Resections.\",\"authors\":\"Kohei Shigeta, Kenichiro Imai, Kinichi Hotta, Nozomu Kobayashi, Ken Ohata, Yoji Takeuchi, Akiko Chino, Masayoshi Yamada, Yosuke Tsuji, Keita Harada, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Toshio Uraoka, Takashi Murakami, Shigetsugu Tsuji, Atsushi Katagiri, Shinichiro Hori, Tomoki Michida, Takuto Suzuki, Masakatsu Fukuzawa, Shinsuke Kiriyama, Kazutoshi Fukase, Yoshitaka Murakami, Hideki Ishikawa, Yutaka Saito\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ueg2.70100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal polyps influences treatment decisions and clinical outcomes; however, its precision remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of endoscopic size estimation for colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm utilizing data from an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post hoc analysis included only en bloc resected lesions treated by ESD. Patients with neuroendocrine tumors, recurrent lesions, colitis-associated dysplasia, or insufficient data were excluded. Size accuracy was defined as a margin of error < 5 mm. Outcomes included the frequency of size errors ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 20 mm, terminal digit preferences in estimated size, and predictors for lesions estimated endoscopically at 20 mm but pathologically ≥ 25 mm. The reference standard was pathological size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1889 lesions (1809 patients), 61 lesions (60 patients) were excluded. Finally, 1828 lesions (1749 patients) were evaluated. The accuracy of endoscopic size estimation was 53.4%. Errors ≥ 10 and ≥ 20 mm occurred in 19.1% and 4.5% of lesions, respectively. Endoscopic size estimation showed a strong terminal digit preference for 0 (65.2%) and 5 (30.0%). Among 366 lesions estimated at 20 mm, 97 (26.5%) were pathologically ≥ 25 mm. Polypoid lesions [odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-6.8] and laterally spreading tumors granular type (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.5) were predictors of underestimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal lesions can be inaccurate and influenced by digit bias, underscoring the need for improved measurement techniques (UMIN000010136).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.70100\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.70100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:内镜下大结肠息肉大小评估影响治疗决策和临床结果;然而,其精确度仍不清楚。本研究旨在利用内镜下粘膜夹层(ESD)队列的数据,评估内镜下估计≥20 mm结肠病变大小的准确性。方法:该事后分析仅包括ESD治疗的整体切除病变。排除有神经内分泌肿瘤、复发性病变、结肠炎相关发育不良或资料不充分的患者。尺寸精度定义为误差范围< 5毫米。结果包括尺寸误差≥10mm和≥20mm的频率,末端指对估计尺寸的偏好,以及内窥镜下估计20mm但病理上估计≥25mm的病变预测因子。参照标准为病理尺寸。结果:1889个病变(1809例)中,排除61个病变(60例)。最后,对1828个病变(1749例患者)进行了评估。内镜下大小估计准确率为53.4%。误差≥10和≥20 mm的病变发生率分别为19.1%和4.5%。内镜下大小估计显示强烈的末端指偏好0(65.2%)和5(30.0%)。在366个20mm的病灶中,97个(26.5%)病理≥25mm。息肉样病变[比值比(OR) 2.8, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.1-6.8]和肿瘤横向扩散颗粒型(OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.5)是低估的预测因子。结论:内镜下对大肠癌病变的大小估计可能不准确,并受到手指偏差的影响,强调需要改进测量技术(UMIN000010136)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inaccuracy and Bias in Endoscopic Size Estimation of Large Colorectal Polyps; Insights From a Prospective Cohort of 1828 En-Bloc Resections.

Background and aims: Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal polyps influences treatment decisions and clinical outcomes; however, its precision remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of endoscopic size estimation for colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm utilizing data from an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) cohort.

Methods: This post hoc analysis included only en bloc resected lesions treated by ESD. Patients with neuroendocrine tumors, recurrent lesions, colitis-associated dysplasia, or insufficient data were excluded. Size accuracy was defined as a margin of error < 5 mm. Outcomes included the frequency of size errors ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 20 mm, terminal digit preferences in estimated size, and predictors for lesions estimated endoscopically at 20 mm but pathologically ≥ 25 mm. The reference standard was pathological size.

Results: Among 1889 lesions (1809 patients), 61 lesions (60 patients) were excluded. Finally, 1828 lesions (1749 patients) were evaluated. The accuracy of endoscopic size estimation was 53.4%. Errors ≥ 10 and ≥ 20 mm occurred in 19.1% and 4.5% of lesions, respectively. Endoscopic size estimation showed a strong terminal digit preference for 0 (65.2%) and 5 (30.0%). Among 366 lesions estimated at 20 mm, 97 (26.5%) were pathologically ≥ 25 mm. Polypoid lesions [odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-6.8] and laterally spreading tumors granular type (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.5) were predictors of underestimation.

Conclusions: Endoscopic size estimation of large colorectal lesions can be inaccurate and influenced by digit bias, underscoring the need for improved measurement techniques (UMIN000010136).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
United European Gastroenterology Journal
United European Gastroenterology Journal GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
147
期刊介绍: United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal) is the official Journal of the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), a professional non-profit organisation combining all the leading European societies concerned with digestive disease. UEG’s member societies represent over 22,000 specialists working across medicine, surgery, paediatrics, GI oncology and endoscopy, which makes UEG a unique platform for collaboration and the exchange of knowledge.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信